Rana Zahid Mahmood, J.--Muhammad Nawaz appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302(b) PPC as Tazir by learned Addl: Sessions Judge Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh holding him liable for intentional murder of Amanat Ali deceased with compensation of Rs, 2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default to pay the same to undergo S.I for six months vide impugned judgment dated 21.1.2002 in case FIR No, 185/1998 Police Station Sarwar Shaheed District Muzaffargarh registered under Sections 302, 109, 432, 148, 149 PPC wherein it is alleged by Muhammad Sharif complainant PW. 3 that on the day of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m. on 4.7.1998 he was present alongwith Amanat Ali deceased, Allah Waris his sons and Muhammad Siddique near their house in, the shadow of tree when they heard alarm from the side of house of Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Ismail, they went towards that side and saw at a distance of about 9/10 Karms towards east from the house of Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Nawaz appellant son of Khurshid, Khurshid son of Hanif cast Sindhu father and son dragging Mst.
Nazia for taking to their house forcibly. He further stated that Siddique Sootram told the PW and the complainant that said persons (appellant and co-accused) forcibly wanted to take his daughter to their house and he be helped on which according to the complainant and PWs they went to the house of Muhammad Siddique and requested the appellant and his father Khurshid not to take away Mst. Nazia with them who would come back to their house after about one or two days after living in the house of her father and then the complainant and PWs took back Mst. Nazia to the house of her father Muhammad Siddique. He further stated that Muhammad Nawaz appellant and Khurshid his father then went back to their home and stated that they were still in the house of Muhammad Siddique when they learnt that Muhammad Nawaz appellant etc. were planning in the house of Iqbal Soya a zimindar and Muhammad Zaman alias Muhammadi and then after about an hour at about 3.30 p.m. Muhammad Nawaz appellant son of Khurshid armed with churri, Khurshid son of Hanif armed with "Wohla" Siddiuqe son of Sharif armed with sota, Ashraf son of Muhammad Din armed with hatchet cast Sindhu. Abdul Ghafoor son of Ghulam Jatt armed with hatchet came and raised lalkara to take away Mst. Nazia forcibly and then they held Mst. Nazia from her arms and legs and tried to take her away when Amanat Ali son of the complainant tried to rescue her whereupon the appellant inflicted churri blow which hit him on his chest and he fell down upon which Allah Waris PW stepped forward and he was also given sota blows by Siddique co-accused on his head and left-hand. The complainant and PWs raised alarm upon which the appellant and co-accused left Mst. Nazia and ran away. The complainant and PWs attended the deceased but he died on the spot. Motive for the occurrence was that nikah of Mst. Nazia daughter of Muhammad Siddique was performed with the appellant about two months prior to the occurrence and on the improvement of financial condition of the father of Mst. Nazia rukhsati was promised. However, Muhammad Nawaz appellant wanted early rukhsati and then about one month prior to the occurrence appellant and Mst. Nazia eloped and then Muhammad Nawaz brought her back about 15/20 days prior to the occurrence to his house and on the day of occurrence Mst. Nazia had visited the house of her parents to see them and wanted to live there for some days but the appellant and his father did not want to allow her to live in the house of her parents which resulted into the occurrence.
2. Presently the appellant filed appeal Bearing No, 60-2002 and there is another appeal Bearing No, 363-2002 titled Muhammad Sharif vs. State and others filed by the complainant against acquittal of Khurshid etc., co-accused while murder reference has also been sent by learned Sessions Judge under Section 347 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence against Muhammad Nawaz appellant.
We are going to dispose of all the above said matters through this single judgment.
3. It is important to mention that the police challenged only Muhammad Nawaz appellant and declared rest of the accused innocent which necessitated filing of private complaint by the complainant and then Muhammad Nawaz appellant was convicted as stated above.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is undoubtedly husband of Mst. Nazia PW.4 and submitted that Muhammad Siddique PW.5 father of Mst. Nazia was produced by the prosecution and Allah Waris brother of deceased appeared as PW.6 and submitted that all the PWs are interested PWs and submitted that independent and impartial evidence has not been brought on record. Learned counsel submitted that if there was any dispute on the taking of Mst. Nazia to the house of her husband/appellant it was between two relative families and had nothing to do with the complainant and his son deceased yet the complainant and his sons unnecessarily interfered into the matter and submitted that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit intentional murder of Amanat Ali deceased son of the complainant and submitted that prosecution story as given in the FIR and in the subsequent testimonies before the learned trial Court is all the concocted story. Learned counsel submitted that since the deceased had no business to interfere into the matrimonial affairs of the appellant and his wife and in-laws of the appellant and whether Mst. Nazia was to accompany to her husband/appellant or to live in the house of her father Muhammad Siddique PW was purely a family dispute between two families yet the complainant pocked his nose in private family affairs without any reasonable cause and submitted that it is important to mention that in heat of passions the appellant took the churri which lying in the window near the place of occurrence and as the deceased had no business to stop the husband from taking away his wife whether with force or with negotiation, the deceased was altogether a stranger and the appellant taking the same to be his insult inflicted one churri blow on the deceased which however, proved fatal and submitted that injury was not repeated which itself shows that there was no intention to kill the deceased. He submitted that in such a situation it was at the most a case where lesser sentence ought to have been imposed by learned trial Court but he sentenced the appellant to death, which is harsh in any case. Learned counsel submitted with reference to statement of Muhammad Nawaz appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.0 that the appellant made a clean breast admission of all events which culminated into the death of the deceased and submitted that rest of the co-accused were falsely involved by the complainant side and submitted that the statement of appellant also find corroboration from FIR itself about the main prosecution story which was dispute of two newly wedded husband and wife with their parents therefore, interference made by the deceased and the complainant was itself an invitation for the trouble. In any event he submitted that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for lesser sentence by the modification in the sentence of death to imprisonment of any description and submitted that it is a case, which is liable to be dealt with Section 302 (c) PPC. He submitted that there is no merit in the appeal against acquittal of rest of the respondents/accused particularly in view of statement of Muhammad Nawaz appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Addl: Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No, 363-`2002 has supported the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence against Muhammad Nawaz appellant and also submitted that the acquittal of co- accused/respondents of Muhammad Nawaz appellant is illegal and opposed to the evidence on record led by the prosecution. Learned Addl: Prosecutor General has submitted that Mst. Nazia has appeared as PW.4 and supported the prosecution case while there is complete corroboration with the testimonies of PWs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and submitted that in the presence of statement of Mst. Nazia PW.4 and Muhammad Siddique her father which corroborated each other, no case for lesser sentence is made out and submitted that all the PWs are natural PWs and impartial too and submitted that cross-examination on the PWs has not made an dent in the prosecution case.
Learned Addl; Prosecution General submitted that police was unfair in the investigation and declared the respondents/accused to be innocent which compelled the complainant to file private complaint. He therefore, submitted that simply because churri blow was not repeated present is not a case of lesser sentence. He submitted that since it was forceful blow therefore, referring to the statement of Dr. Muhammad Shafique Khan CW.1 learned counsel submitted that blow was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, no ground for lesser sentence is made out. He referred to post mortem report available on record as Ex.CW. 1/C and injuries statement Ex.CW. 1/D. He submitted that Allah Waris PW was also injured and he appeared as PW.6 in this case and was also medically examined by doctor and the MLR is available on record as Ex.CW1/A, therefore, submitted that appeal by the appellant was without merit and was liable to dismissed. Also submitted that appeal against acquittal may be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents in appeal against acquittal has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care including impugned judgment and also evidence on record.
8. The perusal of testimonies of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 goes to show that occurrence had taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution through initiation of criminal case vide FIR in this case and the testimonies of PWs stated above also go to prove the murder of deceased in the manner' suggested by the prosecution. The only question before us presently is whether there are any mitigating circumstances which reduce the gravity of the offence and call for lesser sentence to Muhammad Nawaz appellant as learned counsel for the appellant has not thrown any challenge to the conviction passed against the appellant and has simply submitted with reference to statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C that since churri blow has not been repeated and it was only solitary blow therefore, the intention to commit the murder of the deceased was lacking. We have pounded over said aspect of the case keeping in view the prosecution evidence/prosecution case. The testimonies of the eye-witness/PWs 3 to 6 and statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. we find ourselves in agreement with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/convict that is it is not understandable that why the complainant and his son deceased and another son namely Allah Waris PW-6 took serious interest in the dispute/controversy between two in-laws as it is itself an admitted fact being prosecution case that Mst. Nazia was given in nikah by her parents about two months prior to the occurrence and her rukhsati was deferred simply for the improvement of financial position of Muhammad Siddique her father and in the meanwhile Mst. Nazia PW.4 eloped with her husband Muhammad Nawaz by running away from the house of her parents and then through a compromise and conciliation, the appellant/convict and Mst. Nazia were brought back to the house of her in-laws where-after she had gone to see her parents and as per prosecution own case wanted to over- stay in the house of her parents but her husband, convict/appellant did not permit her for over- stay. The statement made by Muhammad Nawaz appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.0 in this respect is very important and find support from the prosecution case itself. It was purely a dispute of accompanying of Mst. Nazia with her husband Muhammad Nawaz appellant whereas whether they intended to take her by force or by negotiation, it was none of the concern of the complainant, his deceased son Amanat Ali and Allah Waris PW. 6 who was also injured in the occurrence with blunt weapon to have interfered so strongly which offended Muhammad Nawaz appellant to the extent that he inflicted churri blow on deceased which landed on right side of his upper chest and resulted into his death on the spot. Whether Muhammad Nawaz had brought churri from his house alongwith co-accused or had taken the same from the nearby window as the stated in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.0 is not of much significance as we are of the view that girl was brought back to her parents house by the complainant and PWs as according to first portion of prosecution story she was being dragged by the appellant her husband and Khurshid his father at .a distance of 9-10 Karms from the house of Muhammad Siddique her father on the public way and due to intervention of the complainant side she was allowed to go to the house of her parents and then the appellant and his father went back to their home and then at the instance of Soya family who are zimindar of the area they once again visited the hose of Mst, Nazia's father and caught hold of Mst. Nazia from her legs and arms is a story which appears to be not true and is neither confidence inspiring nor probable. According to prosecution own case Mst. Nazia also could not wait for her regular and normal rukhsati and eloped with her husband Muhammad Nawaz appellant by running from the house of her father Muhammad Siddique PW much prior to the rukhsati period which was fixed at the time of nikah to be two months later therefore, we are of the view that we are bound to accept the statement of the appellant made under Section 342 Cr.P.0 in toto as probable and logical where he stated that the appellant and his wife Mst. Nazia were invited by her parents to visit to their house and when after meals etc. Muhammad Nawaz wanted his wife to accompany him, her parents wanted her to stay with them which became controversy between the girl family and the convict family and as a result whereof Amanat Ali deceased alongwith his brother Allah Waris injured PW and the complainant, his father also intervened and supported the over-stay of Mst. Nazia in the house of her parents in opposition to the demand of appellant and the respondents including father of Muhammad Nawaz which resulted into unfortunate incident of murder of Amanat Ali deceased son of the complainant. There is substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/convict that churri blow has not been repeated by the appellant on the deceased therefore, had there been any intention to kill him at all cost he might have repeated the blow, which is not the case. Sentiments in such a controversy naturally are on the rise. It was therefore, all sentimental affair, which resulted in the loss of precious life of son of the complainant. We therefore, while upholding the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC passed against Muhammad Nawaz appellant by learned Addl: Sessions Judge Kot Addu after the sentence of death to imprisonment for life with compensation as originally ordered by learned trial Judge. Criminal Appeal Bearing No, 60/2002 stands disposed of in said terms.
Criminal Appeal No, 363/2002 is without merit and is therefore, dismissed. Murder reference is answered in the negative.